Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[(Q)]

They ask for evidence, because they wish to see they are wrong.
They ask for evidence because they do not believe you have any.

It is truly mind boggling the silly things theists will believe.

 

[grover]

If anything, atheists are closer to finding God (if there is one) than most believers are.

Yup

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But why ask for evidence if you know you're going to reject any type of evidence and already say that you can't gather evidence?

*************
M*W: I wanted to jump in here. I can't speak for all atheists, but IMHO, when I ask for evidence, I look forward to learning something novel and worthwhile. As an atheist, I don't automatically deny theists presenting their evidence. I study it. I attempt to confirm it. I hope to be given all kinds of evidence to check out myself.

Atheists should just come out and say they'll never believe in God no matter what and that atheism is just another belief system based purely upon faith alone....

*************
M*W: I'm not so sure all atheists would do this. We all look for new information and new answers. Atheists are in search of the truth. If we weren't in search of the truth, we wouldn't be here. We don't assume that we have all the answers already.

Faith has nothing to do with what atheists believe or don't believe. I don't have faith that there is no god. I don't have faith that there is. It's not about 'faith,' it's about the truth of what is and what isn't.

 

[KennyJC]

We have no idea if the ants are aware or not. That's the point, there's no way of testing this.

There's no way of testing it, but it's blindingly obvious. Do you really think ants are every bit as conscious as humans? Aware of their own mortality? Would they do the same as elephants in the awareness test? I would very much doubt it... but what do you expect from a creature with a brain the size of a pinhead.

And how exactly does Attenborough know the ant doesn't love the queen. What exact test do that supported this hypothesis?

That is something you will have to ask him.

We have no idea how/if the brain makes consciousness so its ridiculous to start making assumptions about that certain areas create it. There is not one iota of evidence to support this claim.

When you read definitions of the frontal lobe or neocortex, it seems to pretty much define 'consciousness'. So perhaps you should read up as to why they got those definitions and why they relate to the brain. If there is 'not one iota' of evidence, then those neuroscientists have a lot of explaining to do for magical thinkers like yourself.

Why do we need consciousness for that? We can't that just be instinctual behavior?

Actually, to plan something as intricate as making tools requires a hell of a lot of awareness and planning. Conscious thought.

How do you know brains aren't receivers of consciousness? Or how do you know that consciousness isn't actually synonomous with being?

Priceless...Receivers? Consciousness is beamed down from heaven by god, right? And our bodies are just biological pods escorting our consciousness around before it goes back to heaven, right? It's actually funny.

No it isn't. That is an elephant instinctually reacting to a white sticker on its head.

The elephant didn't know it was on it's head until it looked in the mirror, understood it was looking at a reflection of itself, was curious as to what that thing on it's head was and investigated it with it's trunk. We know elephants are intelligent creatures, and it seems that intelligence goes hand in hand with consciousness. Perhaps they are one and the same thing. It all comes down to brain power.

But, I'm still unclear how consciousness is a benefit. Additionally, consciousness seemed to bring with it alot of baggage like awareness of death, and then apparently evolution had to build into us illusions like religion and near-death experiences. Let's appy Occam's razor.
1) Evolution caused consciousness, which is an emergent phenomenon of purely material processes, even though consciousness has questionable ability to aid the organisms ability to survive and even seems to cause some anti-survival behavior and awareness of death so evolution then had to build in the conscious organism beneficial illusions like religious belief and near-death experiences so that the conscious organism would not be overwhelmed by mortality even though consciousness provided no survival value to begin with. Or;

Evolution favours religious delusions? I doubt that... If anything religion and all irrational beliefs are the byproduct of subjective emotions which were perhaps useful in other areas. Belief for example, is particularly important to us when growing up. It's useful for our survival to listen to our elders... especially when they speak in a baritone voice. So just because that often means bullshit gets passed down from generation to generation doesn't mean that evolution will ditch this behavior since there will be much more useful knowledge being passed down which will help survival.

2) Near-death experiences occur because consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon and at the time of death the physical body dies but consciousness does not.

The body may be dead, but crucially, is the brain completely dead?

 

[heliocentric]

If you have a set of criteria for what constitutes consciousness (although they do vary) it is possible to know whether or not creatures such as ants are conscious. You simply see if they meet your criteria via objective observation.
Can you get inside a ant's phenomenal experience? can you truely comprehend their interiority? no, but i think that's something very different.

You might not even need subjective phenomenal experience to be conscious, if you take this to be true then all consciousness appears to be is nestled hierarchical systems of informational feedback loops.
With this working concept of consciousness even a computer can be consciousness, or even a basic particle.
This doesnt of course solve the subjectivity problem, but it does give us a basis apon which to base our idea of consciousness as objective study currently allows.
The problem with only holding your own consciousness to be evident is it doesnt really foster enquiry or take you anywhere (imo).

 

[grover]

There's no way of testing it, but it's blindingly obvious. Do you really think ants are every bit as conscious as humans? Aware of their own mortality? Would they do the same as elephants in the awareness test? I would very much doubt it... but what do you expect from a creature with a brain the size of a pinhead.

What do I expect from a creature the size of a pinhead? Not the complex seeminlgy intelligent behavior that both you and I observe. Which is it Kenny, is ant behavior incredibly simplistic or surprisingly complex? I've actually brought up ants before in a discussion about consciousness with a sceptic and that sceptic thought it was pretty obvious that ants are conscious. (see the psipog thread in parapsych). There is nothing blidingly obvious about it.

That is something you will have to ask him.

Your making the claim. Neither of you have any evidence of this whatsoever. Stop being a hypocrite and demanding evidence only when it goes against your belief system. Stop making claims you cant support with evidence.

When you read definitions of the frontal lobe or neocortex, it seems to pretty much define 'consciousness'. So perhaps you should read up as to why they got those definitions and why they relate to the brain. If there is 'not one iota' of evidence, then those neuroscientists have a lot of explaining to do for magical thinkers like yourself.

No, kenny. The frontal lobes are the centers of higher order intelligence. We already agreed that intelligence and consciousness are not synonomous. You are the one with magical thinking since you think consciousness just magically appears from the brain but cant give any specifics about how this actually occurs.

Actually, to plan something as intricate as making tools requires a hell of a lot of awareness and planning. Conscious thought.

Beaver dams are intricate. So now beavers too are conscious? Do you really think beavers are every bit as conscious as human beings? COnscious of their own mortality?

Priceless...Receivers? Consciousness is beamed down from heaven by god, right? And our bodies are just biological pods escorting our consciousness around before it goes back to heaven, right? It's actually funny.

Its no more ridiculous than you saying that consciousness just magically springs from brains without being able to provide any description of how this actually occurs. It's actually funny.

The elephant didn't know it was on it's head until it looked in the mirror, understood it was looking at a reflection of itself, was curious as to what that thing on it's head was and investigated it with it's trunk. We know elephants are intelligent creatures, and it seems that intelligence goes hand in hand with consciousness. Perhaps they are one and the same thing. It all comes down to brain power.

Oh really? Thats what it all comes down to? We have computers with much more brain power than us but we are still totally clueless as to how to creat consciousness.

Evolution favours religious delusions? I doubt that...

Well seeing as religion isn't true in your opinion and that evolution is then that means that evolution created religous delusions.

If anything religion and all irrational beliefs are the byproduct of subjective emotions which were perhaps useful in other areas.

And yet another mysterious epiphenomenon. Anything we don't have an answer for is just an epiphenomenon. Materialism of the gaps.

Belief for example, is particularly important to us when growing up. It's useful for our survival to listen to our elders... especially when they speak in a baritone voice. So just because that often means bullshit gets passed down from generation to generation doesn't mean that evolution will ditch this behavior since there will be much more useful knowledge being passed down which will help survival.

Right. The institutions that most cultures are centered around are just a minor little byroduct.

The body may be dead, but crucially, is the brain completely dead?

Yes.

 

[grover]

The problem with only holding your own consciousness to be evident is it doesnt really foster enquiry or take you anywhere (imo).

Helio,
One of the points Im trying to make is that science as we currently understand it may not apply to investigation of experience, and therefore evidence can not be supplied in relation to consciousness.
What I'm ultimately trying to show is that one may have to investigate ones own consciousness to discover certain truths, and that once these truths are discovered they can not in any objective/third-person way be demonstrated, but that doesn't mean they're worthless, it just means that demanding third-person verifiable evidence is inapplicable.

 

[KennyJC]

What do I expect from a creature the size of a pinhead? Not the complex seeminlgy intelligent behavior that both you and I observe. Which is it Kenny, is ant behavior incredibly simplistic or surprisingly complex?

Each ant is incredibly simple, but the behavior of the group as a whole is complex. Just like a group of sardines in the water forming complex patterns to protect against dolphines & seals etc... Doesn't then mean each sardine in the pattern is intelligent and conscious.

Your making the claim. Neither of you have any evidence of this whatsoever. Stop being a hypocrite and demanding evidence only when it goes against your belief system. Stop making claims you cant support with evidence.

Well it's quite a serious accusation for you to make of someone like David Attenborough to go around saying things with no evidence. I imagine he did have evidence. So why don't you ask him why he is a liar? I'm sure he has an e-mail address somewhere. He will confess, right?

No, kenny. The frontal lobes are the centers of higher order intelligence. We already agreed that intelligence and consciousness are not synonomous. You are the one with magical thinking since you think consciousness just magically appears from the brain but cant give any specifics about how this actually occurs.

No, I said that consciousness is a little bit of everything. Intelligence can come under 'awareness' too. There is no single entity in the brain that is 'consciousness'. It's thought, intelligence, emotion, memory, awareness, and many other things that occurr when the the brain works as one entity. But never the less, reading descriptions of certain parts of the brain, you will see the words 'awareness' and 'consciousness'... So then I am confused why people like yourself want to believe that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain when neuroscientists have found different. If there really is not one iota of evidence, then why do people like David Attenborough and Neuroscientists say different. Don't ask me for the evidence, since I know very little about it.

Beaver dams are intricate. So now beavers too are conscious? Do you really think beavers are every bit as conscious as human beings? COnscious of their own mortality?

I wouldn't place beaver dams as highly as tool making in our recent ancestors.

Its no more ridiculous than you saying that consciousness just magically springs from brains without being able to provide any description of how this actually occurs. It's actually funny.

I just gave you a description though, didn't I? Based on what scientists have labelled the brain's parts as doing. Getting desperate?

Oh really? Thats what it all comes down to? We have computers with much more brain power than us but we are still totally clueless as to how to creat consciousness.

Bogus statement. We can't create so much as a single living cell from raw materials let alone something as complex as a human brain

Well seeing as religion isn't true in your opinion and that evolution is then that means that evolution created religous delusions.

Yes, in a backhanded kind of way. Religion is just one of many things that certain emotions and parts of our psyche are responsible for. Atheists feel every bit the same emotions as a someone who is delusion, except one of them is without rationale of course.

And yet another mysterious epiphenomenon. Anything we don't have an answer for is just an epiphenomenon. Materialism of the gaps.

No I think it's well understood that one evolutionary trait can be responsible for maybe different types of behavior. Saying only one thing evolved religion and nothing else... sounds bogus to me.

Right. The institutions that most cultures are centered around are just a minor little byroduct.

Why not? There is something that causes people to be religious, but that same thing causes people to be many other things...

Yes.

You are talking about people who 'die' then come back to life and report experiences while they were 'dead', right? So how can their brain be completely dead if they came back to life?

 

[grover]

Each ant is incredibly simple, but the behavior of the group as a whole is complex. Just like a group of sardines in the water forming complex patterns to protect against dolphines & seals etc... Doesn't then mean each sardine in the pattern is intelligent and conscious.

Sardines don't do anything as complex as ants. Ants teach their young, ants farm.

Well it's quite a serious accusation for you to make of someone like David Attenborough to go around saying things with no evidence. I imagine he did have evidence. So why don't you ask him why he is a liar? I'm sure he has an e-mail address somewhere. He will confess, right?

Oh, so I'm just supposed to take Attenboroughs word for it? Who's he, the high priest of scientific materialism?

No, I said that consciousness is a little bit of everything. Intelligence can come under 'awareness' too.

And why exactly are you basing this belief on?

There is no single entity in the brain that is 'consciousness'.

What evidence do you have of this?

It's thought, intelligence, emotion, memory, awareness, and many other things that occurr when the the brain works as one entity.

Evidence?

But never the less, reading descriptions of certain parts of the brain, you will see the words 'awareness' and 'consciousness'... So then I am confused why people like yourself want to believe that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain when neuroscientists have found different.

I am not saying that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain. I'm asking for evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Science is based on evidence. There is not one single experiment that has ever been done that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon based on purely physical processes.

If there really is not one iota of evidence, then why do people like David Attenborough and Neuroscientists say different. Don't ask me for the evidence, since I know very little about it.

So you're just taking it on faith that Attenborough knows his ass from a hole in the ground. How is science different from religion again?

I wouldn't place beaver dams as highly as tool making in our recent ancestors.

Can you build one?

I just gave you a description though, didn't I? Based on what scientists have labelled the brain's parts as doing. Getting desperate?

You didnt give me a description of anything backed up by evidence. You basically said that the different parts of the brain working together magically creates consciousness.

Bogus statement. We can't create so much as a single living cell from raw materials let alone something as complex as a human brain

Well, that is a good point. But, I would say that computers are from one perspective more intelligent than us - i.e., we know how to create artificial intelligence but we have no idea how to create artificial consciousness.

You are talking about people who 'die' then come back to life and report experiences while they were 'dead', right? So how can their brain be completely dead if they came back to life?

There have been people that were totally dead and came back.
-------------------------------------------------------------

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[heliocentric]

Helio,
One of the points Im trying to make is that science as we currently understand it may not apply to investigation of experience, and therefore evidence can not be supplied in relation to consciousness.
What I'm ultimately trying to show is that one may have to investigate ones own consciousness to discover certain truths, and that once these truths are discovered they can not in any objective/third-person way be demonstrated, but that doesn't mean they're worthless, it just means that demanding third-person verifiable evidence is inapplicable.

I agree that certain truths can only be known via transrational or 'extra-rational' means - i.e. engaging viscerally with a concept rather than tackling it as an abstraction.

Although i dont believe our abstractions or models for objectifiying consciousness are inherently worthless - id argue that we can know or understand consciousness both by understanding it rationally and transrationally.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Jeremyhfht,

What you regard as facts, has yet to be proven, or contextually explained.

Tell that to the millions of scientists worldwide that make it their job to prove things.

I don't see the need to erect a strawman god, when there is a perfectly adequate description of God, in any of the scriptures, the most comprehensive and detailed being vedic literature.
And please don't waste my time with the diversion of "which God".

Oh really? So you believe that your interpretation of the scripture is universal? I need not say more, that question should make you realize how utterly ridiculous that statement was.

Your perception is so because of your lack of understanding of God.

You want to play that game? Fine.

Your perception is so because you're delusional.

I have already considered what you say. What you say, is all that can be said. The trouble is, your atheism has already set the ground rules (in your mind) as to whether God exists or not, and what you don't understand you make up.

Uh, excuse me? My atheism sets no ground rules, the ground rule I follow is thus: when better evidence is provided, change your opinion.

You've obviously entered this debate with preconceived ideas. As per usual, Jan. Mind pointing out what I "made up"?

I will not accept such an infantile argument, when, as I said before, there is a perfectly good premise to work from, in the form of scripture. The argument therefore becomes meaningless, because of your dictates.

I've said this before: Using the bible to prove itself is a circular logic fallacy. Your argument consists of a baseless (fallacy) assertion which you have yet to prove.

The idea that your right, and others in that field are wrong, simply because they do not agree with your ideas.

When people fail to provide a logically stable premise, or one with evidence, then naturally I'm one to believe they're incorrect. This is simply a belief, much like FAITH, only since it's an opinion I can change it.

And the fact that you argue from a premise which is contextually out of sync with the subject matter, thinking you have a point.

You've not proven this to be true. Prove your premise before you state the result.

The fact that you think your arguments are correct, when quite clearly they are highly lacking, as explained above?

You've explained nothing above. You've merely stated baseless (and illogical) opinions regarding my statements.

Troll.

 

[Red Devil]

Why does the alleged existence of a god type thing cause so much debate online - it is completely unprovable either way?

Personally, its all down to belief, and my belief is that this god thing does NOT exist. As for the biblical thumpers, try arguing for the existence of this god thing without resorting to some man written "holy" book.

 

[snake river rufus]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Without reading everyones posts,,,
Let me point out that this 40 yr. atheist does not admit " that gathering evidence is impossible". I would only ask for some/any evidence that cannot be misconstrued. Evidence showing that your god alone is the cause of the event/deed. Show me anything at all.
Note: I suspect that UFO believers will have better luck providing evidence for their belief than VitalOne will of his. 3000 (or so) years of looking and the well is still dry.

 

[VitalOne]

Without reading everyones posts,,,
Let me point out that this 40 yr. atheist does not admit " that gathering evidence is impossible". I would only ask for some/any evidence that cannot be misconstrued. Evidence showing that your god alone is the cause of the event/deed. Show me anything at all.
Note: I suspect that UFO believers will have better luck providing evidence for their belief than VitalOne will of his. 3000 (or so) years of looking and the well is still dry.

Hey snake river rufus,

You're right its much easier to gather evidence for UFOs/aliens than it is for God because all you have to do is provide simple empirical evidence and then UFOs/aliens will be undeniable. Evidence would be something like an element from an alien aircraft that does not exist on Earth or Mars (or anywhere else known). That would be concrete, undeniable evidence of UFOs...no way to really deny it...

Now in the sameway what would be concrete undeniable evidence of God? I suspect that anything that can be provided can easily be argued against and will not be undeniable....

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Tell that to the millions of scientists worldwide that make it their job to prove things.

Non-sequitor.

Oh really? So you believe that your interpretation of the scripture is universal? I need not say more, that question should make you realize how utterly ridiculous that statement was.

What does my "interpretation" of the scripture have to do with the scriptoral description of God, almighty, omniscient, omnipotent, primary creator....?

You want to play that game? Fine.
Your perception is so because you're delusional.

Your analasys is a product of your understanding.

Uh, excuse me? My atheism sets no ground rules, the ground rule I follow is thus: when better evidence is provided, change your opinion.

What would you regard as convincing evidence of God existence?

You've obviously entered this debate with preconceived ideas. As per usual, Jan. Mind pointing out what I "made up"?

Asking for scientific evidence of a trancendental God.

I've said this before: Using the bible to prove itself is a circular logic fallacy. Your argument consists of a baseless (fallacy) assertion which you have yet to prove.

a) the bible is not the only scripture
b) scripture does not have to "proven" to accept the basic character of God, which is the same in all. The God which the theists (in this thread), refer to.

When people fail to provide a logically stable premise, or one with evidence, then naturally I'm one to believe they're incorrect. This is simply a belief, much like FAITH, only since it's an opinion I can change it.

So make up what you like?
It sounds like it anyway.

Troll

Theist basher.

Jan.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

some people seem to be missing the point of his original post......


if you claim its impossible to prove gods existence, then dont ask for proof. or your own questions are contradicting themselves as much as the bible does,


athiests try to convert people more than religious people on this forum,

peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

notice many atheists get angry about it and get rude? while many theists seem to debate but stay calm and polite?


just an observation,

peace.

 

[RoyLennigan]

notice many atheists get angry about it and get rude? while many theists seem to debate but stay calm and polite?


just an observation,

peace.

Heh... I believe this is because we are debating on a science forum. Go to a christian forum and start talking about evolution. You will get responses just as rude, if not more rude, there. The spectrum of human reactions is not limited to any one philosophy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

RoyLennigan,

....The motivation you are searching for is the structure of the universe--a structure which formed by fundamental relationships between all things (such as pi being the motivation for the structure of a circle)...

..we really don't have much of an idea where or how these constants came to be.

Not surprising, given that the universal laws had not come into being yet.

Either something is physical, i.e. it is made of energy (such as matter), or it is relative.

How do you know that eternal energy only pertains to the physical (matter) alone?

If it is relative, then it is a concept that relates to an actual thing, though this thing is not tangible, though its effects are.

Why couldn't it be the opposite way round, consciousness being "actual", and its tangibility, fleetingly shown, through its temporal effects? Is this not what we experience?

Consciousness is a relative thing because it is based upon the physical state of other things and it has physical effects, but it itself is not physical.

Read above.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

The scientific method can probably be applied to anything - matter or non-matter. It just so happens that nothing non-material has ever been evidenced that enables use by the scientific method.

Nor is it likely to be, under the current thinking.

If the evidence is nature, then your claim that this is evidence of God fails Occam's Razor.

My saying "this is evidence" is not the same as saying, this is scientific evidence. Science is not the study of trancendental nature.

However, I would really like to know what exactly in nature leads you to the conclusion, or reason, that there is a God?

I think "nature" is good enough to work with, as good as any one particular thing.

I merely choose not to be irrational.

I would be weary of people who claim they choose to be rational, or irrational, as they seem a little too calculated for my liking.

You are the one making the claim - YOU provide evidence that life ONLY comes from life.

So far, the evidence points to that, wouldn't you say?

We know that - you just continue to misinterpret the explanations atheists give for their lack of belief - interpreting their lack of belief as belief in non-existence.
If you continue to do that then further discussion on this matter is pointless.

This seems like a dose of "it's my party and I cry if I want to".
There doesn't seem to be any one definition of atheism, as it seems everybody chooses one to fit the current discussion they are in.
The most obvious definition, imo, is that atheists do not believe in God, or the ancient one, atheists deny God. Funily enough, these are always the impressions I get from atheists, despite their own explanations.

I have no reason to believe that god exists, due to lack of evidence.
I do not go so far as to say that I believe that god does NOT exist.

This implies that;
you understand the current evidence fully.
that you know what evidence would give reason, but refuse to say.
if you don't understand current evidence to capacity, then your reason is shakey.

Your God of the Gaps doesn't justify your belief in God - but the gaps give rise to your belief in God.

How presumptious of you.

Anyone who claims that others can not understand is acting in an elitist manner - putting themselves on a pedestal of no-one else's making.

Nonsense.

In the aspect of "lack of evidence" they are identical.

No they're not. This is clearly an attempt belittle scriptoral religion.

How could the scientific method percieve such non-material to observe and test?

To start with, the same way that you claim to?

How is that?

Did science set itself up to deal only with matter - or is the fact that it only deals with matter because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-MATERIAL?

So those who "set up" science went searching for evidence of the non-material?

How could the scientific method percieve such non-material to observe and test?

Now you're beginning to understand.

That doesn't answer the question.

Please point to where the scientific method states that it is only concerned with the material?

It doesn't need to be pointed out.

So God is nothing but a sense?

If you want the correct thinking, on what God is, I suggest you pick up a scripture.

You have exercised your right to be irrational.

This is dangerous territory, you are claiming that anyone who believes in God, is irrational, and all that goes with it. This type of thinking is always a cause of genocidal thinking (not that you are genocidal).

Jan.